The Kickstarter Page for Shadowrun Returns announces this project achieved its $400,000 funding goal in a bit over 24 hours. Their update indicates that if they hit $425K a Mac version would be added, and they are closer to the $500K mark now, so presumably that's a go too.

Beamer wrote on Apr 6, 2012, 08:32:What's most interesting is that these guys are guaranteeing they break even before they make the game, so there is 0 risk for the developer for the individual project.0 risk.

All risk is instead shifted to the consumer. That's right, the publisher gets to make a free game, and if it does well he gets to take his cut. But the consumer does not get a cut of profits, at best he gets a game he wants, which he would probably get without risking $10 on something not yet made and loosely sketched out in something designed to take his money.

I wouldn't say 0 risk. If they don't deliver at least close to the expected game, then they've shot themselves in the foot and aren't likely to get funded again. That seems like a risk to me, and a pretty significant one if they actually want to be able to work this way in the future.

That's why I said "for the individual project." Yeah, there's risk for the developer as a whole, but that risk is always there.

Also, the spirit of kickstarter is to kickstart a business, so ideally people wouldn't be returning to that well again, or would expect less each time. I doubt that would happen, though, and businesses will keep kickstarting projects.

The 90 000 contributed towards the DF KS. I doubt any publisher would consider a game a success if that's the total number of copies it sold.

Kickstarters are great for a niche percentage of gamers but beyond that it'll be business as usual with large publishers pouring money into the lowest common denominator gamers who play only on console.

This is a revolutionary way to develop indie games. Not traditional publishers-developer-consumer AAA titles.

Beamer wrote on Apr 6, 2012, 08:32:What's most interesting is that these guys are guaranteeing they break even before they make the game, so there is 0 risk for the developer for the individual project.0 risk.

All risk is instead shifted to the consumer. That's right, the publisher gets to make a free game, and if it does well he gets to take his cut. But the consumer does not get a cut of profits, at best he gets a game he wants, which he would probably get without risking $10 on something not yet made and loosely sketched out in something designed to take his money.

I wouldn't say 0 risk. If they don't deliver at least close to the expected game, then they've shot themselves in the foot and aren't likely to get funded again. That seems like a risk to me, and a pretty significant one if they actually want to be able to work this way in the future.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)

The Half Elf wrote on Apr 5, 2012, 22:41:I have a question. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, but what happens when developers can't deliver? Are we going to have another dot com bust?

I would shrill like a happy kid if these all come to fruition, but at the same time, I'm a bit leery.

Basically, those funding it are screwed. It's not a happy thought, but it's certainly a possibility.

My worry is similar: What happens when a game that's made for 500K or a million doesn't meet the peoples standards (when people are accustomed to games that usually cost millions to make)? I hope that people are realistic in their expectations, and don't expect something with uber graphics or 100 hours of gameplay. (Thankfully Shadowrun and Wasteland are portrayed as 2d semi-top down.)

It's easy to get swept up in the excitement, but it's also important to keep perspective, and realize these games, if they DO even succeed, are being done on a budget. And we as gamers have to accept that.

Also, how much of this excitement is leading to sales. People are already saying idiotic things like "see, these would sell a ton if they'd been made by a major publisher!" ignoring a few things we do not yet know:

1) How much will these ultimately sell beyond what is kickstarted? If they're capping out under 5 million then it isn't a huge surprise major publishers aren't putting resources into it2) How many of these sales are due to the excitement of kickstarting and the rewards people are getting for it (keep in mind some are spending thousands for single games)?

What's most interesting is that these guys are guaranteeing they break even before they make the game, so there is 0 risk for the developer for the individual project.0 risk.

All risk is instead shifted to the consumer. That's right, the publisher gets to make a free game, and if it does well he gets to take his cut. But the consumer does not get a cut of profits, at best he gets a game he wants, which he would probably get without risking $10 on something not yet made and loosely sketched out in something designed to take his money.

And it's become a great way to fight piracy. Who cares how many people pirate it later when any sale is gravy? And how many people that would have pirated Wasteland 2 are now funding it?

You know... I have one question about the total funding. Once Wasteland and the Shadowrun kickstarters got funded, they opened up PayPal donations as well. They couldn't before, since PayPal immediately takes the money...

Are they going to reveal how much was taken in via PayPal as well (since it's not in the kickstarter totals)? It seems kind of a bit shady if the funding reaches a level just below the next "we're going to do this at $xxx" level and they don't add it when they might have received Paypal donations that pushed it over that limit.

Beelzebud wrote on Apr 5, 2012, 21:03:Turn based games are not fun, and no one wants to play them. The first person perspective is just so much more "immersive"!

That's why Shadowrun Returns and Wasteland 2 were both funded in under 48 hours by people who actually play games.

That's the difference between PC gamers and console gamers. By and large, PC gamers are older and have disposable income, and are willing to put a little money in now to see a good return later. Console gamers want to spend mommy/daddy's money on the next MW DLC, RIGHT NOW.

It's amazing that people still stupidly repeat this kind of trash. Anytime a news report makes video gamers out to be little children and talks about protecting them idiots like you start foaming at the mouth about how inaccurate it is, but when you want to make a silly point you repeat the exact same generalization, only you take your platform of choice out of it.

Yes, people in their 40s tend to be more PC oriented, but the average age of a console user is around 28-34. So stop being an idiot and just claiming the same stupid things Jack Thompson does.

Cutter wrote on Apr 6, 2012, 01:01:Yet again though, I still wish they'd focus on getting game editors/tools out before they start porting to Mac/Linux.

Agreed, I don't care about Mac/Linux versions.

Well, some of us forking over our hard-earned money very much do care... Check the Humble Bundle stats: there's plenty of gamers there on both systems eager to give their money to anyone willing to support them... I'm one of them (Linux, not Mac)... Besides, if they plan in multi-platform support right from the start, it should be relatively easy to keep everything cross-platform with no porting hassles... It's only when you take a game developed solely for a single platform and then try to port it that you run into problems...

NKD wrote on Apr 6, 2012, 00:27:True, it will be a lot harder to get Kickstarters off the ground once the Kickstarter fans have been burned a couple times. And by "burned" I mean that from their perspective they feel they've been burned. The problem with reviving these older properties is that even with the original minds at the helm, the odds of satisifying the majority of the old fans are pretty slim.

Hardcore old school gamers are nigh impossible to please because the closer you get to delivering the game they want, the more they'll blow the little differences out of proportion.

And that's exactly why Fargo & co are actively and massively involving the funders as early as possible in the process, so that expectations are constantly met. They know full well that this model will die an early death if the first few games don't ship or ship in a disappointing state for the majority of the funders.On the other hand, if you get a couple of successes right off the bat, then the story changes. I can imagine EA marketeers thinking of ways to "test the market" with KS, and looking very closely at the ratio between pre-production funding and post-release sales of those first few games.And as more and more games are funded this way, you'll start seeing lower funding cutoffs because devs will know how much they can expect to make on post-release sales, and will be willing to take a larger risk.I've already funded W2 and Adventure, and I'm going to go get Shadowrun now. I'm loving this model where I know that my money goes to the devs.

Honestly I know there is some risk when I put money into a project like this. I don't think that if they fall somewhat short of my expectations I'll be quite as miffed as I am when I spend full price for a game that all the reviews say are awesome that I find out is actually quite terrible. If the game just flat out doesn't come out and I don't get my money back is the only situation I can see that would make me less likely to spend a little bit on the next big kickstarter. Having some say, however small, in what gets made helps to offset some of the risk for me.

The Half Elf wrote on Apr 5, 2012, 22:41:I have a question. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, but what happens when developers can't deliver? Are we going to have another dot com bust?

I would shrill like a happy kid if these all come to fruition, but at the same time, I'm a bit leery.

True, it will be a lot harder to get Kickstarters off the ground once the Kickstarter fans have been burned a couple times. And by "burned" I mean that from their perspective they feel they've been burned. The problem with reviving these older properties is that even with the original minds at the helm, the odds of satisifying the majority of the old fans are pretty slim.

Hardcore old school gamers are nigh impossible to please because the closer you get to delivering the game they want, the more they'll blow the little differences out of proportion.

After a couple of these big name Kickstarters end up disappointing, people will be far less willing to fork over their money, and the bubble will burst.

nin wrote on Apr 5, 2012, 22:52:My worry is similar: What happens when a game that's made for 500K or a million doesn't meet the peoples standards (when people are accustomed to games that usually cost millions to make)? I hope that people are realistic in their expectations, and don't expect something with uber graphics or 100 hours of gameplay. (Thankfully Shadowrun and Wasteland are portrayed as 2d semi-top down.)

It's easy to get swept up in the excitement, but it's also important to keep perspective, and realize these games, if they DO even succeed, are being done on a budget. And we as gamers have to accept that.

But I think the kind of people who pay for this sort of thing ARE the ones who understand, plus they are the ones who play Fallout 1 and still think it looks fine and have a great time with it. And it's the same group that always says that gameplay trumps graphics any day.

I think a modern 2d Isometric game can and will look pretty nice. It won't be made with 16 bit colors and 4x4 sprites.

The Half Elf wrote on Apr 5, 2012, 22:41:I have a question. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, but what happens when developers can't deliver? Are we going to have another dot com bust?

I would shrill like a happy kid if these all come to fruition, but at the same time, I'm a bit leery.

If they can't deliver, we're out of our money. I've worried about that myself, but I think that's the price you pay for getting some of these games to see the light of day.

However, there are some caviats and reassuring thoughts I can offer to that effect:

1) The two games I'm in on, Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun Returns, are made by teams that have shipped a LOT of games. Brian Fargo has delivered like 15 or something games. Jordan Weisman has been involved with like 9. These guys KNOW how to make a game, and they KNOW how to get one shipped. I would be very surprised if their funds run out and they're at 30% done.

2) Both teams so far seem to have a very good plan for getting it done, especially Fargo. They're going to spend 6 months in pre-production and get everything on paper, down to the last item, and only THEN will they hire the full team to get it coded. That cuts down on costs quite heavily. Weisman already has a pretty small team, so he doesn't have to worry that much about costs spiraling out of control. He knows exactly how much his guys cost, etc.

3) I reckon both these studios do have some cash themselves, because obviously they can't make a game with 400K (or 900K in Fargo's case.) and in the case of Wasteland 2, they got contacted by a wealthy software guy who said he'd fund the game if the Kickstarter didn't work out. Weisman seems to have already paid for licensing Shadowrun out of their own money.

4) Having no publisher involved is a massive difference. I'm positive teams waste 50% or more of their time and/or money just pleasing whatever fucking whim some cunt at the publisher comes up with that week. (which is confirmed by Fargo, who says that at least a third of stuff his team did was just nonsense for whatever a publisher wanted.) If these guys can just get down, build the game THEY want to make, they'll be happier, more productive, and more eager to get it done.

5) Game development really doesn't have to cost as much as we all probably think it does. A $50million budget for some multi-platform "AAA" game is probably $30M in advertising, $5M in fees to Sony and MS, $8M in paying the salaries of all those 6000+ worthless assholes and hanger-ons at whatever fuckhead publisher they signed up with and then finally maybe $7M or so for the actual game and their own salaries. EA have said that 75% of a game's budget goes into advertising, which is both fucking insane, and a sign that the large majority of "gamers" will buy whatever piece of shit is hyped enough.

6) Finally, and I think this is THE most important factor: Double Fine, Fargo and Weisman are breaking completely new grounds here. This is their absolute last and only chance to make that game they want to make, because every publisher has already told them to fuck off when they said they'd like to do Wasteland 2, or a Shadowrun game, or an adventure game. This is their chance to get it done, to get it done WITHOUT some cunt from EA who has never played a fucking game in his life bitching about how shit needs to change, to make exactly the game they want to make, and to potentially set up an entirely new way to get games funded.

I genuinely don't think they're just going to give up if they run into any issues. I see these guys working without salaries for several months just to get this started.

This entire 'fund games through kickstarter' movement is starting with them, and if they can't deliver, it would die with them too. Nobody would ever sign up anymore if they don't deliver.

These guys seem way too excited and just plain happy at being able to work without a dumb-ass publisher to let that happen.

The game may slip a bit, and it may not feature everything they promised they'd put in it, but I'm firmly convinced that come next year, I'll be playing a Shadowrun AND a Wasteland game that I helped fund. I genuinely believe this can be the start of a fantastic new era in gaming. Will this ever make another Skyrim? No, I don't think you can get a project like that funded through crowd-funding, but games like these are perfect for this kind of thing.

The Half Elf wrote on Apr 5, 2012, 22:41:I have a question. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, but what happens when developers can't deliver? Are we going to have another dot com bust?

I would shrill like a happy kid if these all come to fruition, but at the same time, I'm a bit leery.

Basically, those funding it are screwed. It's not a happy thought, but it's certainly a possibility.

My worry is similar: What happens when a game that's made for 500K or a million doesn't meet the peoples standards (when people are accustomed to games that usually cost millions to make)? I hope that people are realistic in their expectations, and don't expect something with uber graphics or 100 hours of gameplay. (Thankfully Shadowrun and Wasteland are portrayed as 2d semi-top down.)

It's easy to get swept up in the excitement, but it's also important to keep perspective, and realize these games, if they DO even succeed, are being done on a budget. And we as gamers have to accept that.

nin wrote on Apr 5, 2012, 21:13:It's so badass that two games we normally would never have seen (and if we did, not in the form their original designers intended) are now happening.

A wonderfully unexpected turn in gaming. And kudos to gamers that put their money where there mouth is, and ponying up the cash. After years of comments of "why don't they make a game like they used to? I'd buy it!", it would have been embarrassing if no one showed up for the KS (And in turn, would have allowed publishers to say "See? No one buys that shit.").

I just finished watching Tim Schafer choke up while saying basically the same thing.

I know one of these games still need to succeed first in order for it to be proven but it's great knowing that the future will still have games I want to play. Not everything will be online, microtransacted, pay to win, push a button for awesome and increase your numbers.

I just finished the video myself, and was very impressed with the quality. I know 2P had worked with PA, but I'd never watched any of it, so I was surprised with the quality of the video (IE it wasn't 5 minutes of a guy with a shakeycam). It was also great to see the response from folks within double fine, as it hit it landmarks (I was really hoping someone was filming all of that - Bonus points to Tim for quoting C3P0, as everyone was screaming ).

Really looking forward to the rest of the series now. An unexpected, but very welcome bonus!

KS may not change publishing overnight, but I'd be surprised if people aren't taking notice by now.